The Left's Hypocrisy for Voting Rights

Liberal voting rights over the last several years includes trying to ensure convicted felons have the right to vote to the National Popular Vote law which would eliminate the Electoral College. The claim they want everyone's vote to not only count, but to count more. That said, I provide the reasons why eliminating the Electoral College would not make a person's vote count more, but less in my book Defending Freedom of Contract. Briefly the law would make a person's vote be one out of the 150 million votes cast in a national election instead of one out several million cast in a state. A better solution would be to have have the winner of each Congressional district win the Electoral Vote and the winner of the State win an additional two electoral votes. This would make a person's vote be one out of about 700,000 per congressional district. It would also force candidates to visit more states to fight over purple congressional districts. It is disingenuous for Liberals to say a person's vote count's more in a national popular vote than in the electoral college system.

Furthermore, the Iowa Caucuses illustrates exactly how disingenuous the Liberals are. Everyone is outraged that Trump won the election but lost the popular vote yet in Iowa Bernie Sanders won the popular vote but lost the delegate count. In the 2016 nomination Clinton received about 54% of the total popular vote to Sanders 46%. However, the super delegates were cast in favor of Clinton by over 95%. Something similar can occur again this year. To be angry about a system they employ is just hypocrisy. In fact, the liberals system is much worse than the electoral college because a candidate losing the popular vote in a state would never win more electoral votes than the winning candidate. In other words, in the Democratic primary system a person's vote count's much less.

Miscellaneous Constitutional Thoughts

I have a few miscellaneous Constitutional thoughts or observations:

1. There was at least one positive that I observed from the impeachment trial and that was at least both sides did their best to provide an originlist argument. The Left did not try to give a living Constitution argument by saying the Constitution must change and adapt to modern society. On the contrary, all their arguments to impeach Trump were based on their interpretation of the Founders impeachment clause. I do not think it was a complete originalist argument because in many cases they did not provide the Founders true meaning but intent and that is where they went wrong.

2. One thing that has become apparent is we are polarized society. And what I find very interesting is that a conservative and liberal believe the Constitution follows their ideology with no exception. It is similar to how everyone on the right believes that all criminals are liberals and vice versa. These philosophies amaze me and they prove most people have very self awareness and completely brained washed. For instance, conservatives view all illegals as hardened criminals and liberals view all illegal aliens as angels. Both sides see each other as extremists over every single issue. And what is the result of this behavior. Both sides are actually drifting further from the center to support extreme views. I too used to think the Constitution supported all of my views and I was wrong. For instance, I used to Miranda rights, popular vote for Senators, and One person One Vote were good decisions, they were not. Even desegregation decisions such as Brown v. School Board were decided correctly, SCOTUS used highly flawed rationale. I believed majority rule and democracy were the meaning behind the Constitution. I was wrong, equal rights for all and a Republic were the meaning behind the Constitution.

Learn more from my book: Defending Freedom of Contract

Democrats should Love Trump

Sure, Trump is an egomaniac and says and does many questionable things. But his state of the Union address was filled with a lot of big spending liberal ideas such as fixing our broke infrastructure. I think Trump may accomplish this by letting private companies do some of the work and get reimbursed through tolls. Trump pushed for a better healthcare plan than ObamaCare, prescription drug legislation to lower costs, education choice for millions of lower income persons, and other ideas that certainly both sides can come to some agreement. But you can tell it is personal for Nancy and she will not help Trump with anything. During Trump's comments on the USMC trade deal Nancy had smoke coming out of her ears and she mouthed "that is not true". Why can't both sides just agree it is was win for America instead of trying to take all the credit? While Democrats would not applaud a young girl getting a scholarship to the school of her choice or the 100 year old Tuskegee Airman and being awarded the rank of brigadier general, at least one Democrat has some sense and not a ax to grind. Thank you Krysten Sinema of Arizona.

Trump has issues, but most Democrats are guilty of the same behavior they claim Trump exhibits. Trump has twitter tantrum's but Nancy had a tantrum by tearing up his SOTU speech. I do not think the left believes it, but Nancy's behavior is no different than Trump and any Democrat calling any Trump supporter dumb or incompetent is also no different than Trump. I think both sides need a little self-awareness.

What can be learned from Iowa Caucus Fiasco?

What can be learned form the Iowa Caucus fiasco? There are few things. First, and foremost, the democrats cannot be trusted to run universal healthcare and all the other freebies they want to offer if they cannot run an election. Second, I am not sure if the results of the election can be trusted. There have been more strange happenings in the DNC and about the Iowa Caucuses. The DNC recently changed the rules for debates so Bloomberg can get on the debate stage. Why? They want to stop Bernie and there are more rumors the DNC may change the rules of super delegates back to those that favored Clinton in 2016 (Clinton earned over 95% of all super delegates). This, again, is a fail safe to stop Bernie. On the eve of the Iowa Caucus the Des Moines Register refused to publish the results of their poll. The Register said they had an inconsistency in pollsters conducting the survey. Maybe, but with more and more polls favoring Bernie it looks like bias could have also been the reason for their change of heart of publishing the survey. Since most people in the state read the Des Moines Register, they did not want to influence more people to get on board the frontrunner bandwagon. Maybe everything is on the up and up, but there are a lot of fishy things going on and lets not forget how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign so she would beat out Sanders for the 2016 nomination. Not only was the super delegate system rigged, CNN and other debate hosts were supplying Clinton the questions before the debate. The hacked DNC server showed their bias towards Clinton. If the DNC did not want Sanders in 2016, I doubt he is their first choice out of 20 candidates in 2020. It just seems fishy. Maybe the results show Sanders wins, but that does not mean results are not being altered to some degree.